Billsfanatic8989 Posted July 13, 2018 Posted July 13, 2018 (edited) 31 minutes ago, SouthNYfan said: It must be true then? The onus is on the defense to prove intent if he told somebody to "take" the jewelry back. https://lawshelf.com/courseware/entry/conspiracy Second last scenario from article: "Fred is a security guard who works at the First National Bank of Bedrock. Fred suggests to his friend Barney that the bank has some cracks in its security and might be a good target for a robbery. Fred and Barney then conspire to rob the bank. The plan calls for Barney to enter the bank through the front door, hold up one of the bank tellers and then quietly slip out the back door that Fred would open for him. Upon leaving the bank, Fred’s car is to be waiting for Barney and Barney will take the car and drive to a hideout. Unfortunately, things do not go according to the plan. As Barney is entering the bank, he is confronted by a different security guard. Rather than turn around and leave the bank, Barney kills the guard and proceeds with the robbery. He then proceeds to rape one of the bank’s customers at gunpoint while the teller is placing money into the duffle bag that Barney has given her to fill up. Finally, after Barney runs out of the bank, Fred's car will not start and so he steals a car and drives to his hideout. In this situation, because Fred has conspired with Barney to rob the bank, he can be convicted of any crime Barney committed that was in furtherance of the conspiracy and was a foreseeable result of the conspiracy. Looking at the 3 "additional" crimes committed by Barney, Fred can be convicted for the murder of the security guard and the car theft because those were in furtherance of the conspiracy and were foreseeable. However, Fred will most likely not be convicted for the rape because it was neither in furtherance of the conspiracy, nor was it a foreseeable result of the conspiracy to rob the bank". I should've said Shady Could, not Would, be responsible if the perpetrator committed more crimes then Shady intended. Edited July 13, 2018 by Billsfanatic8989
Bing Bong Posted July 13, 2018 Posted July 13, 2018 2 minutes ago, Luxy312 said: I don't think Tanya is a "he", but what do I know? With the nickname "Pitbull in a skirt" (trademarked), maybe it's a he with a different gender identify? Crap the lawyer's a woman? I'm not a sexist I just assumed the lawyer wasa money grubbing MAN
greenyellowred Posted July 13, 2018 Posted July 13, 2018 53 minutes ago, SouthNYfan said: Not necessarily. They would have to prove he intended for force/injuries to be in the equation, he doesn't have to prove that he said they weren't. The legal doctrine is anyone who participates in a felony is equally as responsible. So if the perp accidentally killed her, it would be murder and both the perp and the person who authorized the burglary would be charged equally with all crimes.
flaz Posted July 13, 2018 Posted July 13, 2018 1 hour ago, SoCal Deek said: Why waste any more of the internet on this whole caper.....let's go straight to Jerry Springer and get it all worked out in less than an hour! That would be coo to watch, but it was announced 2 weeks ago that Springer has stopped taping shows. Everything you see, moving forward, is a rerun. I'd like to see on Dr. Phil though
Bing Bong Posted July 13, 2018 Posted July 13, 2018 4 minutes ago, That's No Moon said: Because if the motive was just robbery it was a pretty half-assed robbery. Go to all that trouble and commit multiple felonies just to take 1 ring and some cash when there is tons of other, small, portable stuff around? If it's a robbery of a person you wait for the person to be home where there are security cameras and possibly/probably weapons? If it was a robbery of the house she was just out of the country and the house was empty you wait for her to come home and then don't take anything from the house? If it was drug addicts needing money they would have taken all the small stuff, particularly the cell phones. If they were professional people they would have taken all the jewelry, cash, cell phones, etc. Well like I said 3rd party that knew the details of what was going on.. knowing what he did would be interpreted as being Shady. So that is a set up certainly, just doubt either Shady or the woman were a part of it. I also don't know the circumstances of the robbery, does sound stupid. Somebody knew about the civil going on and went ahead and did all this, I believe. I don't think the woman was a part of this and had herself pistol whipped on purpose.
Big Turk Posted July 13, 2018 Posted July 13, 2018 (edited) 4 minutes ago, PetermanThrew5Picks said: Well like I said 3rd party that knew the details of what was going on.. knowing what he did would be interpreted as being Shady. So that is a set up certainly, just doubt either Shady or the woman were a part of it. I also don't know the circumstances of the robbery, does sound stupid. Somebody knew about the civil going on and went ahead and did all this, I believe. I don't think the woman was a part of this and had herself pistol whipped on purpose. I'm sure other people knew what she had whether Shady directly told some friends who may have told some friends or whether someone overheard a conversation he was having, etc... In the hood when there is that much guap on the line, that type of info travels like wildfire Edited July 13, 2018 by matter2003 1
whatdrought Posted July 13, 2018 Posted July 13, 2018 4 minutes ago, PetermanThrew5Picks said: I don't think the woman was a part of this and had herself pistol whipped on purpose. I am shocked at the number of people on here that don't believe there are women out there crazy enough to have this happen to them for the sheer sake of getting revenge/money. 2
Hapless Bills Fan Posted July 13, 2018 Posted July 13, 2018 24 minutes ago, PetermanThrew5Picks said: Also is it so hard to believe a 3rd party knew of this situation, knew she would (incorrectly) assume Shady and took advantage of all this nonsense? Shady was incorrectly implicated, not necessarily purposefully implicated and is innocent. And his girlfriend made a wild assumption as to who perpetrated the crime, but is nonetheless a victim of a crime! Nobody is being set up. Someone robbed a woman, beat her, and the woman thought is was Shady. Why are we creating wild scenarios when that is 99% the likely situation. We got some wack detectives working the case at TBD. I'm not sure I understand this post, but the woman knew it wasn't Shady who robbed her. She said in the 911 call that her boyfriend (Shady) set her up. She has various reasons why she believes that, as stated by her lawyer. As I understand her reasons include: 1) The statement there is no sign of forced entry (and presumably no alarm called in) - I believe that was a police statement 2) Shady reportedly had a new security system installed after the existing one caught his movers trying to recover furniture he paid for, and did not give Cordon access to the system - but could have provided access to someone (or, she could have left the door unlocked, who knows) 3) Victim stated that Shady repeatedly asked her to return the jewelry and told her she could be robbed if she kept it, which she apparently took as a threat
Bing Bong Posted July 13, 2018 Posted July 13, 2018 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said: I'm not sure I understand this post, but the woman knew it wasn't Shady who robbed her. She said in the 911 call that her boyfriend (Shady) set her up. She has various reasons why she believes that, as stated by her lawyer. I'm saying a 3rd party, knew this situation, how the woman would perceive the events, and did this. I'm saying that is more likely than her setting Shady up, or Shady setting her up In a sense they were both set up. There were a lot of people knowledgeable of the situation. 8 minutes ago, whatdrought said: I am shocked at the number of people on here that don't believe there are women out there crazy enough to have this happen to them for the sheer sake of getting revenge/money. It's possible sure. I don't think it's likely. Always wanted to be a detective. My first gut would be what I said above ^. More probable. If that is ruled out than yeah, we have a case against the gf. 9 minutes ago, matter2003 said: I'm sure other people knew what she had whether Shady directly told some friends who may have told some friends or whether someone overheard a conversation he was having, etc... In the hood when there is that much guap on the line, that type of info travels like wildfire yep, and someone came up with a dumb robbery idea on their own. Edited July 13, 2018 by PetermanThrew5Picks
JoeF Posted July 13, 2018 Posted July 13, 2018 32 minutes ago, Starr Almighty said: Show some respect her name is Pitbull in a skirt (c) TM Protecting you from Pitbull on a stick or whatever she is... 1
Teddy KGB Posted July 13, 2018 Posted July 13, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Starr Almighty said: Show some respect her name is Pitbull in a skirt I have a guy on retainer, they call him “The Schnauzer in Trousers” Edited July 13, 2018 by Teddy KGB 1
Fadingpain Posted July 13, 2018 Posted July 13, 2018 1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said: Legally, I think a "squatter" is someone who occupies property without the permission of the owner....usually abandoned or unoccupied property. Apparently at the beginning of her occupancy of the house, McCoy purchased it and invited her to live there with him. Since she had the permission of the property owner to occupy the property and lived there for a period of time (in Georgia, apparently >6 months), then as I understand it, no, she's not a squatter, she has tenant rights and thus must be evicted. Yes, the term "Squatting" has been used throughout this thread, incorrectly. The term refers to occupying unoccupied (or abandoned) land, which is not relevant to the facts of this case. If I went through every incorrect assertion of law/legality in this thread, I'd be here for a week. So, just enjoy the discussion and keep going! Maybe we can get to 200!
The Real Buffalo Joe Posted July 13, 2018 Posted July 13, 2018 Correct me if I'm wrong (literally, I admit I might be completely incorrect), but isn't a squatter someone who was never allowed to live in the residence to begin with. Like they just found an abandoned home one day, and just made themselves at home.
#34fan Posted July 13, 2018 Posted July 13, 2018 18 minutes ago, whatdrought said: I am shocked at the number of people on here that don't believe there are women out there crazy enough to have this happen to them for the sheer sake of getting revenge/money. If that's the case, then she's a complete idiot... She's got nothing to gain from making allegations that can't be proved, and everything to lose, if the cops find that she set this whole thing up... Ms. Cordon is going to get her big butt cordoned-off for about 18 months in a Georgia prison.
HOUSE Posted July 13, 2018 Posted July 13, 2018 (edited) I now understand the popularly of the Judge Judy show Edited July 13, 2018 by THE SLAMMER
SouthNYfan Posted July 13, 2018 Posted July 13, 2018 36 minutes ago, Billsfanatic8989 said: https://lawshelf.com/courseware/entry/conspiracy Second last scenario from article: "Fred is a security guard who works at the First National Bank of Bedrock. Fred suggests to his friend Barney that the bank has some cracks in its security and might be a good target for a robbery. Fred and Barney then conspire to rob the bank. The plan calls for Barney to enter the bank through the front door, hold up one of the bank tellers and then quietly slip out the back door that Fred would open for him. Upon leaving the bank, Fred’s car is to be waiting for Barney and Barney will take the car and drive to a hideout. Unfortunately, things do not go according to the plan. As Barney is entering the bank, he is confronted by a different security guard. Rather than turn around and leave the bank, Barney kills the guard and proceeds with the robbery. He then proceeds to rape one of the bank’s customers at gunpoint while the teller is placing money into the duffle bag that Barney has given her to fill up. Finally, after Barney runs out of the bank, Fred's car will not start and so he steals a car and drives to his hideout. In this situation, because Fred has conspired with Barney to rob the bank, he can be convicted of any crime Barney committed that was in furtherance of the conspiracy and was a foreseeable result of the conspiracy. Looking at the 3 "additional" crimes committed by Barney, Fred can be convicted for the murder of the security guard and the car theft because those were in furtherance of the conspiracy and were foreseeable. However, Fred will most likely not be convicted for the rape because it was neither in furtherance of the conspiracy, nor was it a foreseeable result of the conspiracy to rob the bank". I should've said Shady Could, not Would, be responsible if the perpetrator committed more crimes then Shady intended. Which was what I was stating. It's on the onus of the defendant to prove that there was a crime intended to be committed. If Shady was just having them get his own possessions, then he might be completely in the clear. Also, that bank situation, Barney escalated that shi* really quickly. He went off the rails really fast.
LikeIGiveADarn Posted July 13, 2018 Posted July 13, 2018 51 minutes ago, PetermanThrew5Picks said: Also is it so hard to believe a 3rd party knew of this situation, knew she would (incorrectly) assume Shady and took advantage of all this nonsense? Shady was incorrectly implicated, not necessarily purposefully implicated and is innocent. And his girlfriend made a wild assumption as to who perpetrated the crime, but is nonetheless a victim of a crime! Nobody is being set up. Someone robbed a woman, beat her, and the woman thought is was Shady. Why are we creating wild scenarios when that is 99% the likely situation. We got some wack detectives working the case at TBD. You're off the case Mahoney! Turn in your badge! 2 1
SouthNYfan Posted July 13, 2018 Posted July 13, 2018 35 minutes ago, greenyellowred said: The legal doctrine is anyone who participates in a felony is equally as responsible. So if the perp accidentally killed her, it would be murder and both the perp and the person who authorized the burglary would be charged equally with all crimes. The point is, was Shady conspiring to participate in a felony? Did he tell his friend "yo, you gonna dress up in black, rob my house"? or Did he tell his friend "go get XYZ from the house, I don't feel like dealing with that b*tch and I'm thinking she's gonna try and pawn my stuff once she gets evicted" If his intent was to commit a hardcore robbery/felony then yeah, but again, that's a big leap in either direction. 1
Lurker Posted July 13, 2018 Posted July 13, 2018 3 minutes ago, LikeIGiveADarn said: You're off the case Mahoney! Turn in your badge!
That's No Moon Posted July 13, 2018 Posted July 13, 2018 7 minutes ago, SouthNYfan said: Also, that bank situation, Barney escalated that shi* really quickly. So you're saying the bedrock solid plan quickly turned to Rubble? 3
Recommended Posts